Urban Stream Corridor Management in the United States: The Interaction of Ecology and Policy

自1950年以来，美国大都市地区的人口几乎增加了两倍，从8400万（占美国总人口的55%）增加到2000年的2.26亿（占80%）。在同一时期，指定的大都市区的数量从169个增加到347个，它们的总土地面积从占本土48个州的9%增加到19%左右。随着大都市区的扩张，土地开发已经退化并破坏了自然排水系统、流域、湿地、含水层和沿海河口。在此过程中，自然雨水滞留、水质过滤、生物栖息地、水基娱乐和风景美化都受到了损害。通过技术来取代这些“自然服务”的努力，如防洪工程和水处理厂，已经被证明是昂贵的，对环境有害的，有时是无效的。20世纪60年代，科学家、环保主义者和其他作家（如尤金·欧达姆、加勒特·哈丁、威廉·h·怀特、巴里·科莫纳、吉尔伯特·怀特、伊恩·麦克查、露娜·利奥波德、威廉·奈林、约翰和米尔德里德·蒂尔）对这一令人沮丧的过程提出了挑战。作为回应，一些城市和大都市地区试图用麦克格的话说，“设计与自然”，而不是试图通过技术来克服生物物理的限制。这种转变是试探性的，在地理上是不均匀的，而且记录也很差。但它的成果在广泛建立的河流走廊“绿道”、渠化河流的“采光”、洪泛区和湿地管理、陡坡建筑法规以及城市林业计划等方面是显而易见的。为了本研究的目的，这些和有关的倡议可归入“城市流域管理”的大标题。由于流域通常包含多个政治和所有权单位，因此流域管理需要创造性地利用伙伴关系、特区和其他区域战略。无论好坏，城市流域管理也受到联邦法律的影响，如《清洁水法》、《国家洪水保险法》、《沿海地区管理法》和《安全饮用水法》。本研究将根据科学和制度挑战，分析和比较城市流域和河口管理的区域经验。将指导本研究的研究问题包括：1。有哪些可供选择的制度模式可以克服城市流域和河口的法律碎片化？哪些“有效性”指标可以应用于问题1中确定的模型？联邦计划如何以及在多大程度上鼓励或抑制城市流域和河口管理？“产权运动”和“征收问题”对政府保留城市流域自然功能的努力有什么影响？本研究将通过四个广泛的任务来评估城市流域管理的比较区域经验：任务1 -实践状况调查：将调查按地理区域和学科分层的州和区域资源管理人员样本，并根据其各自的地理位置调查上述问题；任务2——将在3-5个具有代表性的大都市地区举办区域讲习班，以确定在城市流域、河流走廊和河口的多目标管理方面更详细的地方和区域经验；任务3 -详细案例研究将更仔细地分析在早期任务中确定的选定项目，这些项目代表了一系列具有更广泛意义的地理背景和制度战略；任务4 -通过一本书、学术文章和会议论文出版和传播成果。

Since 1950, metropolitan regions of the United States have nearly tripled in population from 84 million (55% of U.S. total) to 226 million in 2000 (80%). During the same period, the number of designated metropolitan regions grew from 169 to 347 and their aggregate land area doubled from 9% to about 19% of the lower 48 states. As metropolitan regions have expanded, land development has degraded and disrupted natural drainage systems, watersheds, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal estuaries. In the process, natural stormwater detention, water quality filtering, biotic habitat, water-based recreation, and scenic amenity have been impaired. Efforts to replace these "Nature's services" through technology, as with flood control projects and water treatment plants, have proven costly, environmentally damaging, and sometimes ineffective. This dismal process was challenged in the 1960s by scientists, environmentalists, and other writers (e.g., Eugene Odum, Garrett Hardin, William H. Whyte, Barry Commoner, Gilbert White, Ian McHarg, Luna Leopold, William Neiring, and John and Mildred Teal). In response, certain cities and metropolitan regions have attempted in McHarg's phrase to "design with Nature" rather than trying to overwhelm biophysical constraints through technology. This shift is tentative, geographically uneven, and poorly documented. But its results are evident in the form of widely established stream corridor "greenways," "daylighting" of channelized streams, floodplain and wetlands management, building regulations for steep slopes, and urban forestry programs. These and related initiatives may be subsumed in the broad rubric of "urban watershed management" for purposes of this study.Since watersheds typically embrace multiple political and ownership units, watershed management requires creative use of partnerships, special districts, and other regional strategies. Urban watershed management is also influenced, for better or worse, by federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, the National Flood Insurance Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. This study will analyze and compare regional experience in urban watershed and estuary management in light of scientific and institutional challenges. Research questions that will guide the study include:1. What alternative institutional models are available to overcome legal fragmentation in urban watersheds and estuaries?2. What indicators of "effectiveness" may be applied to the models identified in Question 1?3. How and to what extent do federal programs encourage or inhibit urban watershed and estuary management?4. What is the influence of the "property rights movement" and the "takings issue" as constraints upon governmental efforts to retain natural functions of urban watersheds? The study will assess comparative regional experience in urban watershed management through four broad tasks:Task 1 -- Survey of State of Practice: A sample of state and regional resource managers stratified by geographic area and discipline will be surveyed regarding the above questions in relation to their respective geographic localities;Task 2 -- Regional Workshops will be conducted in 3-5 representative metropolitan areas to ascertain more detailed local and regional experience in multi-objective management of urban watersheds, stream corridors, and estuaries;Task 3 -- Detailed Case Studies will more closely analyze selected programs identified in the earlier tasks that representative a spectrum of geographical context and institutional strategies of broader significance;Task 4 - Publication and Dissemination of Results through a book, scholarly articles, and conference papers.